Hopefully it is a television that can be rolled up and shipped / stored in a poster tube... otherwise I think I'll stick with my low-profile Samsung LCD and ATV2 puck.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Multiple Sources Suggest Apple Working on Television for as Early as 2012
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In support of your comments, here in Seattle we were the beta-testers for Microsoft's software running on Motorola STBs on the Comcast Cable network. They played with it for about 18 months before abandoning it to go back to iGuide/SARA (used everywhere else but the NE, where Tivo is an option).
I agree that Google would have a hard time forcing CableCos to adopt Google TV on their set-top boxes. Speaking of Tivo, Comcast has been testing that for four years, and it has yet to leave the Northeast test area.
You got me wondering...
Back in the 1980's a friend had a projection TV. The projector was like the console that fits between the front bucket seats of a car or van -- only bigger.
The screen was a 10' x 15' movie screen that electronically rolled up into the ceiling.
As an aside, he had a tool belt like Norm Abrams to hold all his remotes
Also, there were all-in-one projection TVs on the earliest days of consumer TV (1950s).
... so I surfed around and found:
How Projection Television Works.
This article may be a little dated, but some of the information I gleaned:
1) Projection TVs [can] cost considerably less than Plasma or LCD screens.
2) The projectors of today are much better and smaller then those of several years ago.
3) The image can be projected from in front or behind the screen
4) With a front projector, a wall can be used as the display surface,
5) with proper setup, a projection TV experience can approach that of a movie theater.
6) There is a technology called DLP that provides resolution similar to LCD displays -- if not better.
DMD Vs. LCD
The gap between the mirrors in a DMD pixel (left) is smaller than the gap in an LCD display (right), resulting in a sharper display.
DLP - Data Loss Prevention
About the only downside I ran across was that the projector lamp needed periodic replacement.
I wonder if a 21st century projection TV would be the way to provide a low-cost, no-fuss, high-quality TV experience.
... Now, if they can resolve that little problem about access to content...
Last edited:
Brilliant point.If Apple does this I expect they will bring something unique to the market.Otherwise they wouldn't bother.The LAST thing I'd expect to see is simply a TV with an built-in ATV.What will it be?Not a clue.But given Apple's track record I expect to be surprised and delighted(and broke).
IF such a thing ever comes out...
Still have concerns about updatability though,my TV replacement cycle would be a lot slower than a $99 box.We'll see how they get around that if they release it.
It's all about size.
When the iPad came out everyone was in hysterics that Apple was charging so much for a large iPhone. And the iPad has done alright. I'm sure there are plenty of forum members that have both an iPad and iPhone even though they are effectively the same device just different sizes.
Well logically the next step up size wise beyond a PC monitor is a television.
You guys like watching movies on your iPad or iMacs?
While I'm sure a lot of you are using your apple TV boxes the technology is clearly over the average americans head.
While most people seem to think it will just be a pretty screen with integrated apple tv, think of all the possible apps that would work infinitely better on a large screen that multiple people could view. Games etc. that would no longer require 2 ipads or 2 people sharing an ipad, but is equally viewable for the whole effing family!
If the price isn't nuts- this is logically apple's next step. TV's are commoditized at this point, but they are becoming so cheap- especially sub 40' tv's that people can afford to pay a premium for a premium product. Just like phones became super cheap , but were such an important part of peoples every day lives that paying an extra $200 - $300 was a trade off people were more than willing to make.
When the iPad came out everyone was in hysterics that Apple was charging so much for a large iPhone. And the iPad has done alright. I'm sure there are plenty of forum members that have both an iPad and iPhone even though they are effectively the same device just different sizes.
Well logically the next step up size wise beyond a PC monitor is a television.
You guys like watching movies on your iPad or iMacs?
While I'm sure a lot of you are using your apple TV boxes the technology is clearly over the average americans head.
While most people seem to think it will just be a pretty screen with integrated apple tv, think of all the possible apps that would work infinitely better on a large screen that multiple people could view. Games etc. that would no longer require 2 ipads or 2 people sharing an ipad, but is equally viewable for the whole effing family!
If the price isn't nuts- this is logically apple's next step. TV's are commoditized at this point, but they are becoming so cheap- especially sub 40' tv's that people can afford to pay a premium for a premium product. Just like phones became super cheap , but were such an important part of peoples every day lives that paying an extra $200 - $300 was a trade off people were more than willing to make.
There are several issues with selling a TV.
1) A TV has to be at least 42" (and probably much larger). Considering how crowded Apple Stores are getting already, where will Apple display these TVs? As a counterpoint, Apple could simply display these on the walls, so they might not take up much space.
2) TV hardware is extremely commoditized. If Apple increases the margins to match their other products' margins, will they get priced out of the market? As a counterpoint, Apple might be able to use their huge cash hoard to buy the displays at a significant cost advantage.
3) Apple has a similar product in their Apple Cinema Displays. This is quite clearly a very minor side market for Apple, because they are unable to bring in enough differentiation. What differentiation could they bring to the TV market, that cannot be better achieved through the $99 Apple TV?
Of course, all these points applied to the iPhone before it was released too (commodotized market, and simply licencing iTunes to cellphone makers, like the Moto Rokr) and Apple managed to create something dramatically different. Maybe they could pull out some magic for the TV market too, but I am doubtful.
----------
+++
Additionally, the upgrades can still happen. Has the OP you were replying to never used a Mac, iPhone, or iPad? You only need software updates, and especially so in a TV set top box, which is unlikely to need new hardware. At least with a mac/iPhone/iPad, you want new HW to get a better camera, or a better display, etc. With a STB, all you really need is improving SW.
Current TV is pretty much dead. I stopped watching everything except for live sports a long time ago, and even then, I tune into MLBTV.com for baseball.
Why should anyone have to deal with these pitiful cable companies when they can watch full HD shows, commercial free, for free?
----------
Many of us have been using our computers with HDTVs for a long time. Ever heard of HTPCs? These have been popular for eons.
Why should anyone have to deal with these pitiful cable companies when they can watch full HD shows, commercial free, for free?
----------
Many of us have been using our computers with HDTVs for a long time. Ever heard of HTPCs? These have been popular for eons.
One word: Gimmick
----------
NONE. This is what needs to be understood by all. Including the slobbering idiots at the WSJ.
False. Everyone has always wanted more out of 1 pocketable portable. Conversely, no one has ever wanted anything more out of a TV than the picture it displays.
Not at all! Before the iPhone, mobile phones were notorious for being user-unfriendly, with horrendous interfaces. navigating contacts list was a nightmare. everyone knew that apple could bring a whole new level of intuitiveness and efficiency to the interface. There was vast room for improvement even without the iPhone features that we didn't even know about yet.
Television is completely different. TVs are the dumb front end to our entertainment systems. We all hook up different things to them: cable box, dvr, apple tv, satellite, a/v receivers, video games, etc. The TV itself is a commodity that requires virtually no interaction after the initial picture setup, other than turning it on/off. There is no need or market for an Apple-branded TV unless Apple could deliver a better performing TV. And how can they do that? Since the Pioneer Kuro left the market in 2008, the current best plasmas are from panasonic and samsung. So....what? Apple would buy a panasonic display, wrap it in a beautifully designed Apple housing, integrate the current Apple TV functionality, and charge a premium? And who would buy that instead of a Panasonic TV + a current Apple TV?
I agree with you entirely, but if Apple did simply rebrand a TV, I bet that many would still buy it, if software integration is better than the rest.
Personally, for those of us who have been using TVs with our Macs/PCs for years, I have no interest in an Apple TV even if the delivery is amazing. I already have everything that I need to play/watch what I want.
An Apple TV?
Wait, don't I already have 2 or 3 of those?
I guess if it was just a really big iMac with HDMI inputs. All my TV's do now is function as monitors. There is a lot of circuitry in them that never gets used (such as the tuner and audio circuitry).
Wait, don't I already have 2 or 3 of those?
I guess if it was just a really big iMac with HDMI inputs. All my TV's do now is function as monitors. There is a lot of circuitry in them that never gets used (such as the tuner and audio circuitry).
One has to keep in perspective something Jobs said a while ago. He quoted Gretzsky's famous line about skating to where the puck is going to be.
Product development is a moving target... Over the two or three years it takes to bring a product from concept to market, the market is changing. The cycle for this is very fast in technology, but tech companies are frequently weighted down with managers from other industries who don't really understand or think about this. They watch their competition and base their strategy as reactive maneuvering... This is why my former employer in the telecom industry was years behind VOIP.
Apple doesn't necessarily try to be first because there's a lot of money to be lost in being first to market. And he learned a valuable lesson from Bill Gates about that... in a real conversation that took place between the two when Gates said it didn't matter that Apple was first. Gates was right.
But what Apple has become very good at is anticipating the moment at which an innovation is ripe for becoming a standard. This has taken a lot of past failures and miscalculations in the histories of Apple and NeXT, but I guarantee that Steve has studied them all.
I was never a big fan of the idea of Apple doing a TV. But I've seen them not only evolve into more of a luxury consumer electronics company... and there's NOTHING wrong with that. I wish people would get over this notion, and they still haven't, that for Apple to be Apple, computers need to come in a one-size-fits all form factor, i.e. a laptop or desktop that handles every conceivable task but isn't optimized for any particular usage.
Maybe they feel the time is getting close to being right for the TV to be a computing platform... not in the traditional sense, but in the same sense the iPhone is a computing platform. Maybe they've found a few possible ways that it can work... and maybe their product roadmap for iPhone and iPad, and AppleTV, has helped gradually acclimate consumers to the idea... as they work out other details like content sources.
Eventually it's all going to come together and technological convergence will happen again, and Apple will need to be ahead of the curve by providing solutions that fit a particular purpose well. The computer isn't what it does or how many gigabytes it has. Today what makes a computer useful is not that it's a computer, but what does it do?
When Airport Express came along, I started to ditch CD's and streamed music. When AppleTV came along I started to ditch DVD's and streamed movies. Now I'm accessing content directly and I've ditched cable.
The fundamental problem or disconnect between consumers and cable providers is that cable providers still don't get, just like telecom companies don't get, that video is data. Music is data. Movies are data. Pictures are data. Why is this important? Because people have grown up in a world now for 30 years where in at least the realm of computing, they've been able to have read-write access to data...
When cable companies first dabbled with interactive TV, fewer people were used to interacting with and selecting what content they wanted. But now we are even content sharers via Facebook, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. So, maybe people are ready to conceive of the living room as a place for interactive content sharing in two directions... or at least they will be in another 2-3 years.
I'd take that bet, just as I took the bet in 1996 that whole albums of music were eventually going to be distributed via the internet... and look where we are now. My only wish is that I hadn't sold the six thousand shares I had of Apple a few months before iPod came out. That I did not see coming, but on the heels of that lapse of foresight, I think I can see a potential for Apple to bring this product to market, if done right, and be less of a "computer in your living room" than an IPTV capable of connecting to whatever media you see fit to stream. In that regard, I see high potential for it. My biggest gripe about consumer electronics for years has been why they don't speak IP, because they could do things that AppleTV controlled by the iPhone Remote app now facilitate, albeit in a slightly less than optimal way.
Consumers are used to iPods and iPhones and iPads that speak IP... appliances that have taken the foreground while the network/computer has become the digital hub... But consumers also show overwhelming desire to remove the digital hub. Even nerds do, every time you hear a forum member complain (until iOS 5) about no wireless or OTA syncing... So why not the rest of consumer electronics?
It's not going to mean that Apple will become the new Sony. I think they're still the Ferrari of the consumer electronics world. But Steve famously once retorted that Porsche doesn't seem to be worried that they don't sell as many cars as Ford. The irony, I suppose, is that Porsche went into the SUV business (as did BMW, something they said they'd never do, and now their X3 and X5 outsell their sedans).... but getting into the SUV market now is skating to where the puck was, not where it will be.
I would expect Apple to broaden a little bit, but I think they're still going to be very careful about the implementation, and make tweaks along the way as they do with every product.... or yank it quickly and quietly if it fails miserably, and move on.
Product development is a moving target... Over the two or three years it takes to bring a product from concept to market, the market is changing. The cycle for this is very fast in technology, but tech companies are frequently weighted down with managers from other industries who don't really understand or think about this. They watch their competition and base their strategy as reactive maneuvering... This is why my former employer in the telecom industry was years behind VOIP.
Apple doesn't necessarily try to be first because there's a lot of money to be lost in being first to market. And he learned a valuable lesson from Bill Gates about that... in a real conversation that took place between the two when Gates said it didn't matter that Apple was first. Gates was right.
But what Apple has become very good at is anticipating the moment at which an innovation is ripe for becoming a standard. This has taken a lot of past failures and miscalculations in the histories of Apple and NeXT, but I guarantee that Steve has studied them all.
I was never a big fan of the idea of Apple doing a TV. But I've seen them not only evolve into more of a luxury consumer electronics company... and there's NOTHING wrong with that. I wish people would get over this notion, and they still haven't, that for Apple to be Apple, computers need to come in a one-size-fits all form factor, i.e. a laptop or desktop that handles every conceivable task but isn't optimized for any particular usage.
Maybe they feel the time is getting close to being right for the TV to be a computing platform... not in the traditional sense, but in the same sense the iPhone is a computing platform. Maybe they've found a few possible ways that it can work... and maybe their product roadmap for iPhone and iPad, and AppleTV, has helped gradually acclimate consumers to the idea... as they work out other details like content sources.
Eventually it's all going to come together and technological convergence will happen again, and Apple will need to be ahead of the curve by providing solutions that fit a particular purpose well. The computer isn't what it does or how many gigabytes it has. Today what makes a computer useful is not that it's a computer, but what does it do?
When Airport Express came along, I started to ditch CD's and streamed music. When AppleTV came along I started to ditch DVD's and streamed movies. Now I'm accessing content directly and I've ditched cable.
The fundamental problem or disconnect between consumers and cable providers is that cable providers still don't get, just like telecom companies don't get, that video is data. Music is data. Movies are data. Pictures are data. Why is this important? Because people have grown up in a world now for 30 years where in at least the realm of computing, they've been able to have read-write access to data...
When cable companies first dabbled with interactive TV, fewer people were used to interacting with and selecting what content they wanted. But now we are even content sharers via Facebook, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. So, maybe people are ready to conceive of the living room as a place for interactive content sharing in two directions... or at least they will be in another 2-3 years.
I'd take that bet, just as I took the bet in 1996 that whole albums of music were eventually going to be distributed via the internet... and look where we are now. My only wish is that I hadn't sold the six thousand shares I had of Apple a few months before iPod came out. That I did not see coming, but on the heels of that lapse of foresight, I think I can see a potential for Apple to bring this product to market, if done right, and be less of a "computer in your living room" than an IPTV capable of connecting to whatever media you see fit to stream. In that regard, I see high potential for it. My biggest gripe about consumer electronics for years has been why they don't speak IP, because they could do things that AppleTV controlled by the iPhone Remote app now facilitate, albeit in a slightly less than optimal way.
Consumers are used to iPods and iPhones and iPads that speak IP... appliances that have taken the foreground while the network/computer has become the digital hub... But consumers also show overwhelming desire to remove the digital hub. Even nerds do, every time you hear a forum member complain (until iOS 5) about no wireless or OTA syncing... So why not the rest of consumer electronics?
It's not going to mean that Apple will become the new Sony. I think they're still the Ferrari of the consumer electronics world. But Steve famously once retorted that Porsche doesn't seem to be worried that they don't sell as many cars as Ford. The irony, I suppose, is that Porsche went into the SUV business (as did BMW, something they said they'd never do, and now their X3 and X5 outsell their sedans).... but getting into the SUV market now is skating to where the puck was, not where it will be.
I would expect Apple to broaden a little bit, but I think they're still going to be very careful about the implementation, and make tweaks along the way as they do with every product.... or yank it quickly and quietly if it fails miserably, and move on.
You'll be waiting a while yet. For the scale of a full-size HDTV, OLED is grossly impractical. It's is nowhere near LCD quality for imaging and it's quite expensive yet, costing $2500 for the XEL-1 with its 11-inch screen that's a quarter of HD resolution.
I don't think OLED will be practical for another 3-5 years at least.
IMO is all about content.
ATV to be successful Apple has to figure out a way for people to get all the content they want a la carte and pay for it without crossing too much the traditional prices Cable/satellite providers charge.
Once people see the real value on that, then I cam see Apple expanding their offerings into other products. (Television).
Just slapping a current ATV model on a TV set will not be a suscessful endeavor at this point.
ATV to be successful Apple has to figure out a way for people to get all the content they want a la carte and pay for it without crossing too much the traditional prices Cable/satellite providers charge.
Once people see the real value on that, then I cam see Apple expanding their offerings into other products. (Television).
Just slapping a current ATV model on a TV set will not be a suscessful endeavor at this point.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just like the iPhone and the iPad the answer is going to be Apps. Everyone is thinking waaaay too bug on this. I think the future has already been shown. Just like the iPad, you just need to make a bigger version if what already exists. An AppleTV would focus on bringing together the existing Apple technologies in one machine. Open it and the ATv box up to Apps. Then integrate FaceTime/Skype, etc. Of course Netflix and a flash based TiVo built in that gets it's data for free from iCloud or something and you have a winner. People would happily hand over a couple hundred premium or more for a toy like that. And no special deals needed with providers of content.
Just like the iPhone and the iPad the answer is going to be Apps. Everyone is thinking waaaay too bug on this. I think the future has already been shown. Just like the iPad, you just need to make a bigger version if what already exists. An AppleTV would focus on bringing together the existing Apple technologies in one machine. Open it and the ATv box up to Apps. Then integrate FaceTime/Skype, etc. Of course Netflix and a flash based TiVo built in that gets it's data for free from iCloud or something and you have a winner. People would happily hand over a couple hundred premium or more for a toy like that. And no special deals needed with providers of content.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Add a TV tuner to an Apple Display or IMac. Make it super easy to wall mount and done. Nothing too big but like an Apple TV
Add a TV tuner to an Apple Display or IMac. Make it super easy to wall mount and done. Nothing too big but like an Apple TV
QFHD or WQUXGA?
There is one thing that is not yet commodity and would get me to consider an Apple TV if reasonably priced: QFHD (3840×2160), or, even better, WQUXGA (3840×2400). Now, there are only a few such commercially available LCD monitors, used in cinema and medical imaging. They are fantastically expensive. But, we all know that Apple likes to pay cash up front - enough to guarantee a profit for the right supplier. Such a monitor would have to be at least 48" or larger for TV use. There were some prototypes 10 years ago, and, Eizo has one listed for $36K. I wonder if Apple could sell a consumer version for < $3K?
There is one thing that is not yet commodity and would get me to consider an Apple TV if reasonably priced: QFHD (3840×2160), or, even better, WQUXGA (3840×2400). Now, there are only a few such commercially available LCD monitors, used in cinema and medical imaging. They are fantastically expensive. But, we all know that Apple likes to pay cash up front - enough to guarantee a profit for the right supplier. Such a monitor would have to be at least 48" or larger for TV use. There were some prototypes 10 years ago, and, Eizo has one listed for $36K. I wonder if Apple could sell a consumer version for < $3K?
This "Apple building a TV" drek came from The Onion, right?
TV? Yes...but why would anyone think it has to be a "TV set"? They already have the AppleTV box to deliver content to your HDMI TV. Is it too complicated to connect power and HDMI, then connect to your WiFi (or Ethernet) network?
Can you say "ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and AppleTV"?
If a sitcom costs $1 million per episode and Apple decides to produce a high-quality show (and I'm not talking "Two Broke Girls"), would there be at least 4 million people who would subscribe to a season's worth of shows (26 episodes) at $13 per season? That's $52 million; a 100% profit margin. Certainly better than hardware.
Laugh if you will but the plan is for Apple to create a TV network and also to become a national ISP. Once they control the content and the pipe, the other four networks will cave. Creative destruction at its finest.
Expensive? Apple has $750 billion in the bank and a data center looking for content.
Out of their core competency? Can you say "Pixar"?
Apple dropped "Computer" from their corporate name for a reason.
Think Different.
TV? Yes...but why would anyone think it has to be a "TV set"? They already have the AppleTV box to deliver content to your HDMI TV. Is it too complicated to connect power and HDMI, then connect to your WiFi (or Ethernet) network?
Can you say "ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and AppleTV"?
If a sitcom costs $1 million per episode and Apple decides to produce a high-quality show (and I'm not talking "Two Broke Girls"), would there be at least 4 million people who would subscribe to a season's worth of shows (26 episodes) at $13 per season? That's $52 million; a 100% profit margin. Certainly better than hardware.
Laugh if you will but the plan is for Apple to create a TV network and also to become a national ISP. Once they control the content and the pipe, the other four networks will cave. Creative destruction at its finest.
Expensive? Apple has $750 billion in the bank and a data center looking for content.
Out of their core competency? Can you say "Pixar"?
Apple dropped "Computer" from their corporate name for a reason.
Think Different.